W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: A collection of issue resolutions

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:35:51 +0200
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8914387.E5A8%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-14 0:12, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:

>> ... For literals as subjects to be 'interesting' they must be untidy,
>> and my concern was that folks would interpret the "go ahead" to future WGs
>> as meaning that folks later might get interesting literals as subjects,
>> which of course they won't since we're about to make literals tidy.
>> 
>> All of the discussions that have occurred in this list and elsewhere
>> have been based on the presumption of untidy, interesting literals
>> as subjects, so we need to be clear that we're not simply deferring
>> untidy, interesting literals as subjects because of syntax issues, etc.
>> but that we are eliminating such a possibility for the future, even if
>> later folks can have tidy, uninteresting literals as subjects.
> 
> We aren't thought police. Lets be quite clear that literals denote
> strings, unconditionally and unambiguously. Thats all we need to say.
> If people want to say that a string has a property, then let 'em. It
> might not seem very interesting, but that's not our business.

Did you even read what I wrote? I simply expressed concern about
misunderstanding the apparent future ability to have literals as
subjects would allow folks to say stuff like

   "10" rdf:dtype xsd:integer .

which in a context of tidy literals is nonsense!

The whole *point* of having literals as subjects, per the datatyping
discussions, was to be able to do just that, and not have it be
nonsense. And the reason for not allowing literals as subjects was
because of charter constraints. But after that was decided, we chose
to make literals tidy, which would have made the original consideration
for literal subjects a non-issue, and folks may get confused to think
that it still is an option.

I simply said, let's be clear on that. Sheesh!

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 03:34:32 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:10 EDT